Patent Owner’s Hearing Demonstratives
`IPR2018‐01460
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,024,418
`December 12, 2019
`
`1
`
`
`IPR2018‐01460
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,024,418
`December 12, 2019
`
`1
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`2
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`’418 Patent Figures 4A and 4B
`
`’418 Patent at 6:52‐64
`
`PO Resp. at 4‐5
`3
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`’418 Patent Figures 4A and 4B
`
`’418 Patent at 6:64‐7:3
`
`PO Resp. at 4‐5
`4
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`’418 Patent Figures 4A and 4B
`
`’418 Patent Claim 1; see also Claims 12 and 17
`
`PO Resp. at 4‐5
`5
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Technology Overview
`
`’418 Patent Figures 4A and 4B
`
`’418 Patent Claims 2‐5
`
`PO Resp. at 4‐5
`6
`
`
`
`Rashed | Comparison to ‘418 Patent
`
`• Rashed’s power rails do not meet independent Claims 1, 12, 17
`– Based on undisputed “configured to” / “forming … to” and “means for” coupling construction
`• No coherent mapping of additional recitations of dependent Claim 5
`• Rashed’s power rails not within continuous diffusion region (Claims 4, 15, 20)
`– Only basis to modify Rashed as proposed is improper hindsight
`
`Pet.’s Annotation of Rashed Figure 5A (Pet. at 18)
`
`’418 Patent Figures 4A and 4B
`
`PO Resp. at 49‐76
`7
`
`
`
`Rashed | Petitioner’s Mapping
`
`• Petitioner’s mapping:
`– “first gate layer” to “isolating electrode”
`150PG or 150NG
`– “gate‐directed local interconnect” to
`“conductive contact” 190P or 190N
`– “diffusion‐directed local interconnect
`configure to couple …” to “power rail”
`140P or 140N
`• “conductive contact” 192P or
`192N not mapped
`
`Petitioner’s Annotation of Figure 5A (Pet. at 18)
`
`Pet. at 20‐30; PO Resp. at 51
`8
`
`
`
`Rashed | Overview
`
`Petitioner Does Not Assert that FIG 4A is a separate embodiment from FIG 5A
`
`Petition at 17
`74. Given this relationship between Figures 4A and 5A, a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret Figures
`4A as disclosing any alternative or different structural
`arrangement from Figure 5A. … [A] person of ordinary skill
`in the art would not interpret Figure 4A as suggesting Rashed
`discloses power rail 140H and isolating electrode 150PG are
`connected with no intervening structure. Such a conclusion
`would be directly contrary to Figures 5A and 5A-B and the
`accompanying text ….. Rather, a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would simply conclude that Figure 4A (and Figure 4B,
`which has the same level of detail) do not contain sufficient
`detail as to that aspect.
`
`Lall Dec. (EX2002) at ¶ 74
`PO Resp. at 54‐56
`9
`
`Pet.’s Annotation of Rashed Figure 5A (Pet. at 18)
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | “Configured To” / “Forming … To” (Claims 1 and 10)
`
`Undisputed: Claims 1 and 12 require that a purported “diffusion‐
`directed local interconnect” be designed to couple as recited
`Claim 1: a diffusion-directed local interconnect layer
`Claim 12: forming a diffusion-directed local interconnect
`configured to couple the first gate layer to one of the first
`to couple one of the first and second gate-connected local
`and second gate-directed local interconnects
`interconnects to the first gate layer
`
`Based on the foregoing, Patent Owner presents persuasive arguments and
`credible evidence to support a finding that “configured to” and “adapted to”
`should be construed narrowly. As such, we construe the terms “configured to”
`and “adapted to” as “requiring structure designed to or configured to
`accomplish the specified objective, not simply that they can be made to
`serve that purpose.” PO Resp. 5–6 (quoting Aspex Eyewear, 672 F.3d at 1349).
`Acclarent, Inc. v. Ford Albritton, IV, IPR2017‐00498, slip op. at 16 (PTAB July 9, 2018) (Paper 40)
`(quoting Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012))
`PO Resp. at 7‐10
`10
`
`
`
`Rashed | Power Rail Design
`
`Pet.’s Annotation of Rashed Figure 5A (Pet. at 18)
`
`Lall Dec. (EX2002) at ¶ 77
`
`PO Resp. at 49‐50, 56‐59
`11
`
`
`
`Rashed | Power Rail Design
`
`• Rashed explicitly describes coupling design of other components
`With continuing reference to FIGS.5A-5C, in one
`illustrative embodiment, [a] the device level contacts 175
`that contact the source regions 120S of the transistors
`120P2 and 120P3 are conductively coupled to [b] the
`power rail 140H [c] by a plurality of conductive contacts
`190P and
`[a]
`150PG is
`the
`isolating
`electrode
`conductively coupled to [b] the power rail 140H [c] by a
`conductive contact 192P.
`
`Rashed (EX1005) at 7:26‐32
`– But Rashed never states that [a] isolating electrodes 150 are conductively
`coupled to [b] conductive contacts 190 [c] by power rail 140
`
`PO Resp. at 49‐50
`12
`
`
`
`Rashed | Failure of Mapping Claims 1 and 12
`
`Claim 12: forming a diffusion-directed local
`Claim 1: a diffusion-directed local interconnect
`interconnect to couple one of the first and second
`layer configured to couple the first gate layer to
`gate-connected local interconnects to the first gate
`one of the first and second gate-directed local
`interconnects
`
`ylayer
`[W]e construe the terms “configured to” and “adapted to” as “requiring
`structure designed to or configured to accomplish the specified objective,
`not simply that they can be made to serve that purpose.”
`Acclarent, Inc. v. Ford Albritton, IV, IPR2017‐00498, slip op. at 16 (PTAB July 9, 2018) (Paper 40)
`(quoting Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`EX2002 at Para. 77
`
`PO Resp. at 49‐50, 56‐59
`13
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | “Means for Coupling …” (Claim 17)
`Agreed Corresponding Structure
`“a diffusion-directed local
`interconnect as
`described at 7:8-12, Fig. 4A, 3:9-14, Fig. 4B,
`3:15-19, 7:12-16, 5:62-64, 6:36-39, 8:9-11,
`2:48-52, Figs. 5A, 5B, 6A, 7A, or 7B, and
`equivalents thereof.”
`
`Claim 17: means for coupling the gate-directed
`local interconnect to the third gate layer
`
`EX2001 at 26‐28
`
`PO Resp. at 6‐7
`14
`
`
`
`Rashed | Failure of Mapping Claim 17
`• The Power Rails of Rashed are not the same as interconnect 450
`or any other corresponding structure of the ‘418 Patent
`– Petitioner does not even argue equivalents
`
`Pet.’s Annotation of Rashed Figure 5A (Pet. at 18)
`
`PO Resp. at 60‐61
`15
`
`
`
`Rashed | Failure of Mapping Claim 5
`
`Petitioner fails to provide a coherent mapping of all elements of
`Claim 5
`
`Pet.’s Annotation of Rashed Figure 5A (Pet. at 18)
`
`’418 Patent Claim 5
`
`PO Resp. at 62‐64; PO Sur‐Reply at 17‐18
`16
`
`
`
`Rashed | Failure of Mapping Claim 5
`
`The Petition fails to identify any structure in Rashed as the recited
`“power supply node”
`The Petition’s annotated FIG. 5A‐A
`does not show a “power supply node.”
`
`Petition at 40
`
`Petition at 41
`
`PO Resp. at 62‐64
`17
`
`
`
`Rashed | Failure of Mapping Claim 5
`
`The Petition fails to identify any structure in Rashed as the recited
`“power supply node”
`Cited sections of Rashed never
`reference a “power supply node.”
`
`Petition at 40
`
`EX1005 at 5:17‐23
`
`EX1005 at 8:18‐32
`PO Resp. at 62‐64
`18
`
`
`
`Rashed | Failure of Mapping Claim 5
`
`The Reply’s assertion that Rashed’s power rails are also the“power
`supply node” is untimely and nonsensical
`
`Petition describes “power
`supply node” and “power rail”
`separately
`
`Petition at 40
`
`Reply still fails to identify “power supply
`node” in Rashed, instead arguing that
`the “power supply node” and “power
`rail” need not “be distinct structures”
`
`PO Resp. at 62‐64; PO Sur‐Reply at 17‐18
`
`Pet. Reply at 23‐24
`
`19
`
`
`
`Rashed + Lu Combination | No Motivation to Modify Rashed (Claims 4, 15, 20)
`• Petitioner concedes that Rashed’s power rails are not “positioned
`within a footprint for the continuous diffusion region”
`– Prior art does not suggest removing (or moving) power rails
`Rashed
`Lu
`Rashed
`
`Pet. at 63
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Pet. at 63
`PO Resp. at 65‐76
`20
`
`
`
`Rashed + Lu Combination | No Motivation to Modify Rashed (Claims 4, 15, 20)
`• Once the required power rails are shown in “Modified” Rashed,
`there is no “area reduction” to motivate modifying Rashed
`– And with power rails, no reason to add “modified” structures
`
`Moreover, it would have been obvious to
`APOSITA to modify the teachings of
`Rashed in view of Lu to reduce the area
`(chip real estate) being utilized by the
`various
`semiconductor
`devices
`and
`elements in device 100. Dec., ¶[xx].
`Petition at 64
`
`PO Response at 65‐76
`
`21
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind
`
`Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at ¶ 2;
`see also Inventor Zhu Dec. (EX2061) at ¶ 2
`
`EX2006 at 1
`
`PO Resp. at 11‐49
`22
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind
`
`• Primary swear‐behind proof not disputed
`– No dispute that Qualcomm proved DUT16 structure defined in GDS file
`embodies all elements of all Swear‐Behind claims except one disputed
`element of a single dependent claim
`– No dispute that Qualcomm proved January 17, 2012 date of GDS file
`– No dispute that Qualcomm proved that fabricated test chips include DUT16
`structure as defined in GDS file
`– No dispute that Qualcomm proved diligence from before Rashed filing date
`through latest identified reduction to practice
`
`PO Resp. at 11‐49; Pet. Reply at 4‐19; PO Sur‐Reply at 3‐4
`23
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind
`
`Swear-Behind requires either: [a] reduction to practice prior to the effective date of the
`reference, or [b] conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference
`coupled with due diligence from prior to said date to a subsequent reduction to practice
`37 CFR § 1.131(b)
`June 28 – September 21
`Numerous Reductions to Practice:
`Multiple fabrication and testing
`milestones of multiple test chip batches
`
`January 17
`Corroboration of Conception:
`Finalized GDS file including test
`structures (DUT16) embodying
`Swear‐Behind Claims,
`corroborating conception
`between August 2011 and
`January 2012
`
`Jan
`
`Feb
`
`Mar
`
`Apr
`
`May
`
`Jun
`
`PO Resp. at 11‐49
`
`July 2
`Rashed filing date
`
`Demonstrated Diligence
`Activities
`Aug
`
`Jul
`
`2012
`
`Sep
`
`Oct
`
`Nov
`
`Dec
`
`December 31
`Lu Provisional filing date
`24
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind
`
`Reduction to Practice requires: (1) an embodiment of the invention was
`constructed that meets all the limitations of the claims at issue; and (2) the
`inventor appreciated that the invention would work for its intended purpose.
`Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`January 17
`Corroboration of Conception:
`Finalized GDS file including test
`structures (DUT16) embodying
`Swear‐Behind Claims.
`
`May 24
`Test results: Inventors receive
`M1 WAT testing of ML4 and ML5
`test structures.
`June 28
`Fabrication milestone: 1st Test
`Lot fabrication completed
`through M6 layer.
`
`September 21
`Test results: Nallapati presentation
`of successful DUT16 performance
`
`Jan
`
`Feb
`
`Mar
`
`Apr
`
`May
`
`Jun
`
`2012
`
`Jul
`
`Aug
`
`Sep
`
`Oct
`
`Nov
`
`Dec
`
`PO Resp. at 11‐49
`
`July 2
`Rashed filing date
`
`December 31
`Lu Provisional filing date
`25
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – Corroborating Evidence
`
`• No case law requires corroborating evidence of inventorship
`– Petitioner’s cited cases say nothing about corroboration of inventorship
`But as the Board noted, “there are no indicia in either the body or header of
`the email indicating a file is attached, let alone a file entitled ‘mechanics6’.”
`… Apator attempts to corroborate Mr. Drachmann’s testimony with the emails
`and the drawings, but the emails and drawings can only provide that
`corroboration with help from Mr. Drachmann’s testimony.
`Apator Miitors v. Kamstrup, 887 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`The inventors declare that the drawings and prototypes depicted in Exhibits
`A–H were created on “a date prior to January 7, 2004.” J.A. 1182. But these
`dates are supported only by inventor testimony. Therefore, Exhibits A–H fail
`to independently corroborate any inventor testimony showing prior conception.
`Kolcraft Enterprises v. Graco, 927 F. 3d 1320, 1324‐25 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`PO Sur‐Reply at 4‐6
`
`26
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind
`Undisputed: Qualcomm corroborated January 17, 2012 date of GDS file
`
`EX2006 ; see also Non‐Inventor Yang Dec. (EX2062) at ¶ 61
`
`EX2010; see also Non‐Inventor Yang Dec. (EX2062) at ¶ 62
`
`Non‐Inventor Yang Dec. (EX2062) at ¶ 59;
`see also Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at ¶ 112,
`Inventor Zhu Dec. (EX2061) at ¶ 76
`
`PO Resp. at 12‐13
`
`27
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – Corroborating Evidence
`
`• No case law requires corroborating evidence of inventorship
`
`But our case law does not require that evidence have a source independent
`of the inventors on every aspect of conception and reduction to practice;
`“such a standard is the antithesis of the rule of reason.”
`E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax, 921 F.3d 1060, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d
`1321, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1998))
`
`Moreover, corroboration may be provided by sufficient independent
`circumstantial evidence, and corroboration of every factual issue contested
`by the parties is not a requirement of the law.
`In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1330)
`
`PO Sur‐Reply at 4‐6
`
`28
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – Corroborating Evidence
`
`Evidence shows including inventors part of Qulacomm 20 nm team
`
`Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at ¶ 2;
`see also Inventor Zhu Dec. (EX2061) at ¶ 2
`
`Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at ¶ 146
`
`PO Resp. at 12, 42‐45; PO Sur‐Reply at 6
`
`Ex. 2017 at 8
`
`29
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – Corroborating Evidence
`
`Inventorship proven through submission of oath during prosecution.
`MPEP § 602.01(a); 35 U.S.C. § 115(a); 37 C.F.R. § 1.63(a)
`
`EX1002 at
`132‐134
`
`PO Sur‐
`Reply at 5
`
`30
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – Corroborating Evidence
`The GDS screenshots are verified by Non‐Inventor Yang
`and Apple inspected the Native file
`Screenshots of GDS file made by
`Apple during Apple’s inspection
`
`PO Resp. at 13, PO Sur‐Reply at 6
`
`Non‐Inventor Yang Dec. (EX2062) at ¶ 7
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`31
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – Physical Reduction to Practice
`
`No basis to discount TSMC fabrication at Qualcomm direction
`
`Qualcomm thus has not shown that the June 28, 2012 test chip, which was
`allegedly fabricated based on this GDS file, was created by or on behalf of the
`inventors.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply at 12
`
`Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at ¶ 146
`
`PO Sur‐Reply at 6‐7
`32
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – Recognition Invention Works for Intended Purpose
`
`ML4 and ML5 test structures targeted leakage current concerns with
`invention design
`
`Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at ¶ 119‐120
`
`PO Resp. at 36
`33
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – Recognition Invention Works for Intended Purpose
`
`• ML4 and ML5 test structures targeted leakage current concerns
`with invention design
`– These test results enabled inventors to appreciate the claimed design
`would work for its intended purpose
`
`Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at ¶ 120, 143; see also Inventor Zhu Dec. (EX2061) at ¶ 105‐06
`
`PO Resp. at 36
`34
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – Recognition Invention Works for Intended Purpose
`
`Inventor Nallapati’s recognition shown in September 2012
`presentation of test data of 78 samples is undisputed
`
`EX2056A.7
`
`Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at ¶ 154
`
`PO Resp. at 39‐40
`35
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – “Power Supply Node”
`
`Multiple declarants identified the DUT 16 metal 2 structure as a “power rail”
`
`Non‐inventor Ranganthan Dec. (EX2063) at ¶ 29
`
`Lall Dec. (EX2002) at ¶ 58
`
`Inventor Zhu Dec. (EX2061) at ¶ 64;
`see also Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at ¶ 100
`
`PO Resp. at 24‐25, 35; PO Sur‐Reply at 10‐14
`36
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – “Power Supply Node”
`
`Petitioner’s incomplete “tracing” fails to address Qualcomm’s
`evidence showing a “power rail” above the DUT 16 structure
`
`Pet. Reply at 19
`
`Pet. Reply at 18
`PO Sur‐Reply at 10‐14
`37
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – “Power Supply Node”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioner’s incomplete “tracing” fails to address Qualcomm’s
`evidence showing a “power rail” above the DUT 16 structure
`Petitioner does not dispute:
`– A power rail is a “power supply node”
`– Qualcomm identified a metal layer 2
`structure arranged as required in claims
`Petitioner does not address:
`– Multiple declarants describing the metal
`layer 2 structure as a power rail
`– Any explanation of metal layer 2 structure is
`if not a power rail
`
`Pet. Reply at 18
`PO Sur‐Reply at 10‐14
`38
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind – “Power Supply Node”
`
`Dr. Nallapati did not “confirm[] that this view shows that metal layer 2, in fact, does not
`connect to the Vdd/Ground regions and therefore cannot be a power rail” as Petitioner alleges.
`
`Q.
`
`You agree, right, that the highlighted polygon on
`page 4 of Exhibit 1015 is not one of the Metal 2
`lines that you annotated with a red arrow in your
`declaration on page 49; correct?
`
`A.
`
`Correct.
`
`Nallapati Dep. (EX1016) at 191:7‐11
`
`Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at p. 49
`
`Pet. Reply at 19; PO Sur‐Reply at 10‐14
`39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Additional Slides
`
`Additional Slides
`
`40
`
`
`
`Claim Construction | Diffusion‐Directed Local Interconnect
`
`Agreed Construction of “Diffusion‐
`Directed Local Interconnect
`
`a local interconnect that has a polygonal footprint with
`a longitudinal axis that is parallel to the longitudinal
`axes of
`the polygonal
`footprints of
`the diffusion
`regions.
`
`EX2001 at 21
`
`’418 Pat at 4:39‐43
`
`PO Resp. at 10
`41
`
`
`
`Claim Interpretation | Claim 5
`
`Both experts: (1) recognize obvious error in “first gate layer for the second
`transistor” and (2) interpret as “first gate layer for the blocking transistor”
`Dr. Liu recognizes obvious error in Claim 5 language
`
`Liu Dec. (EX1003) at ¶ 82
`Dr. Liu maps Claim 5 to gate for blocking transistor
`
`Liu Dec. (EX1003) at ¶ 82
`
`’418 Patent Claims 2, 5
`PO Resp. at 10‐11; Lall Dec. (EX2002) at ¶ 43
`42
`
`
`
`Rashed | Overview
`
`Rashed Figure 5A/4A Embodiment
`
`Pet.’s Annotation of Rashed Figure 5A (Pet. at 18)
`
`PO Resp. at 49‐56
`43
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind
`Undisputed: The DUT16 structure of the test chip embodies all
`elements of all Swear Behind Claims other than one contested
`element of Dependent Claim 5
`
`PO Resp. at 13‐33; Pet. Reply at 16‐19; PO Sur‐Reply at 3
`44
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind
`Undisputed: The DUT16 structure defined in the GDS file was
`physically fabricated in the test chip
`
`Non‐Inventor Yang Dec. (EX2062) at ¶ 90; see also Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at ¶ 146
`
`EX2016A
`
`EX2063 at ¶28 (Annotated Ex. 2016B.1 and Ex. 2016C.1)
`
`PO Resp. at 35
`45
`
`
`
`’418 Patent | Swear Behind
`Undisputed: Work continued with reasonably continuous diligence
`from July 2012 through September 2012 (and beyond)
`
`Inventor Nallapati Dec. (EX2060) at ¶ 161
`
`PO Resp. at 40‐49
`46
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
